Wang X., Zhang X., He A. et al. · Inorganic Chemistry · 2024 · 6948-6956
Open a family to keep every result attached to its sample, method and conditions.
Paraphrased for this database from the authors’ stated interpretations — never quoted verbatim — and kept separate from reported measurements.
The authors state that the Cu-HHTP absorbers lack intrinsic magnetism, so magnetic loss is not a contributor in this system.
Caveat: No magnetic measurement data are tabulated in the provided text; this is an author interpretation in the EMW discussion.
4 · 3.2
All three morphology-controlled Cu-HHTP samples were successfully synthesized with high crystallinity, but B-Cu-HHTP shows a different tilted/near-phase stacking assignment from A- and C-Cu-HHTP.
Caveat: Assignment is based on PXRD comparison to simulated patterns; no CIF or refined structural model was supplied in the provided documents.
3 · 3.1 · Figure 1 · Linked to 3 structured results
The nanosheet A-Cu-HHTP morphology has the largest BET surface area and the strongest EMW absorption performance, which the authors link to improved scattering/reflection paths and impedance matching.
Caveat: EMW measurements use 1:1 MOF/paraffin composite rings, not neat MOF pellets.
4,7 · 3.1; Conclusions · Figures 4-7 · Linked to 4 structured results
Changing the structural inducer from ammonia to water or pyridine controls Cu-HHTP crystal morphology, producing nanosheets, nanorods, and nanoballs respectively.
Caveat: The C-Cu-HHTP pyridine quantity is not reported, so the full synthetic variable set is partially specified.
2-3 · 3.1 · Scheme 1; Figure 2 · Linked to 3 structured results
The EMW loss mechanism is attributed to conduction loss from electron migration in conductive Cu-HHTP frameworks, polarization loss from charge sites/functional groups, pore-assisted contact, multiple scattering, and improved impedance matching.
Caveat: The paper does not report first-hand DC conductivity measurements for A/B/C-Cu-HHTP; conductivity is inferred from conductive-MOF identity, dielectric response, and literature background.
6-7 · 3.2 · Scheme 2 · Linked to 3 structured results
Names and aliases are kept exactly within the paper’s own identity model.
| Material | Composition | Structure context | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-Cu-HHTPBrowse family: Cu₃(HHTP)₂ / Cu–HHTP | Cu-HHTP; commonly described as Cu3(HHTP)2, exact stoichiometric formula not explicitly restated in this paperCu ions coordinated by catecholate oxygen atoms; Cu+ and Cu2+ states observed by XPS · HHTP = 2,3,6,7,10,11-hexahydroxytriphenylene hydrate | 2D · PristineConductive Cu-HHTP MOF with nanosheet morphology; PXRD consistent with phase-1/eclipsed AA stacking. | 1,3 · Abstract; Results and Discussion · Figure 2a |
| B-Cu-HHTPBrowse family: Cu₃(HHTP)₂ / Cu–HHTP | Cu-HHTP; commonly described as Cu3(HHTP)2, exact stoichiometric formula not explicitly restated in this paperCu ions coordinated by catecholate oxygen atoms; Cu+ and Cu2+ states observed by XPS · HHTP = 2,3,6,7,10,11-hexahydroxytriphenylene hydrate | 2D · PristineConductive Cu-HHTP MOF with nanorod morphology; PXRD more consistent with near phase-1/tilted stacking. | 3 · Results and Discussion · Figure 2b |
| C-Cu-HHTPBrowse family: Cu₃(HHTP)₂ / Cu–HHTP | Cu-HHTP; commonly described as Cu3(HHTP)2, exact stoichiometric formula not explicitly restated in this paperCu ions coordinated by catecholate oxygen atoms; Cu+ and Cu2+ states observed by XPS · HHTP = 2,3,6,7,10,11-hexahydroxytriphenylene hydrate | 2D · PristineConductive Cu-HHTP MOF with nanoball/agglomerated morphology; PXRD highly consistent with phase-1/eclipsed AA stacking. | 3 · Results and Discussion · Figure 2c |
| Perfect electrical conductor reference plate | PEC | unknown · Model System180 x 180 x 1 mm3 perfect electrical conductor substrate used only as an RCS simulation reference. | 2,6 · Characterization and Measurements; Results and Discussion · Figure 7 |
Sample form, processing state and composition status define the context for measurements.
| Sample | Form and role | Processing and geometry | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-Cu-HHTP/paraffin coaxial ringresearch_0897__mat__a_cu_hhtp | Pellet · Composite Sample · Composite | A-Cu-HHTP uniformly mixed with paraffin at mass ratio 1:1 and pressed into coaxial ringRL thickness series 1-5 mm; RCS coating layer 4.4 mm | 2 · Characterization and Measurements |
| A-Cu-HHTP nanosheet powderresearch_0897__mat__a_cu_hhtp | Nanosheet · Target Sample · Pristine Framework | black precipitate; centrifuged, washed with H2O and EtOH, dried in vacuum oven at 60 Cnanosheet thickness approximately 53 nm | 2-3 · Experimental Section; Results and Discussion · Figure 2a |
| B-Cu-HHTP/paraffin coaxial ringresearch_0897__mat__b_cu_hhtp | Pellet · Composite Sample · Composite | B-Cu-HHTP uniformly mixed with paraffin at mass ratio 1:1 and pressed into coaxial ringRL thickness series 1-5 mm; RCS coating layer 4.4 mm | 2 · Characterization and Measurements |
| B-Cu-HHTP nanorod powderresearch_0897__mat__b_cu_hhtp | Powder · Pristine Control · Pristine Framework | black precipitate; centrifuged, washed with H2O and EtOH, dried in vacuum oven at 60 C overnightnanorod average diameter 141 nm | 2-3 · Experimental Section; Results and Discussion · Figure 2b |
| C-Cu-HHTP/paraffin coaxial ringresearch_0897__mat__c_cu_hhtp | Pellet · Composite Sample · Composite | C-Cu-HHTP uniformly mixed with paraffin at mass ratio 1:1 and pressed into coaxial ringRL thickness series 1-5 mm; RCS coating layer 4.4 mm | 2 · Characterization and Measurements |
| C-Cu-HHTP nanoball powderresearch_0897__mat__c_cu_hhtp | Powder · Pristine Control · Pristine Framework | prepared similarly to A-Cu-HHTP, replacing aqueous ammonia with pyridine; washed/dried as for A-Cu-HHTP | 2-3 · Experimental Section; Results and Discussion · Figure 2c |
| PEC reference modelresearch_0897__mat__pec_reference | Model · Model System · Model | CST Studio Suite reference simulation substrateperfect electrical conductor · 180 x 180 x 1 mm3 | 2,6 · Characterization and Measurements; Results and Discussion · Figure 7a |